McGraw et al ANSWER filed 1/26/07 FULL DOCUMENT

[Linda in L.A.]

I saw a ruling in this case posted at scared monkeys this afternoon. Someone else can copy it over here if they want to. It looks like the Judge has granted the motion to dismiss Skeeter's estate. I showed it to my husband, the attorney, and he thinks it is a bad, bad ruling for Dr. Phil. It really leaves Dr. Phil hanging out to dry.

I'm no attorney...but it the court has ruled it was noteworthy news and therefore not an invasion of privacy...they can't later come back and say it was. So at a minimum...at least the invasion of privacy has been dealt with in my opinion.

As to dismissing Skeeter from commiting fraud...it could open the door for Dr. Phil. Saying Skeeter didn't...doesn't necessarily mean Dr Phil didn't.

[resigned]

Case Number: BC363201
DEEPAK KALPOE VS PHILLIP C MCGRAW

Filing Date: 12/13/2006
Case Type: Defamation (Slander/Libel) (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Pending

Future Hearings

01/29/2010 at 08:30 am in department 69 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Motion to Compel (c/f 11-16-09)

05/06/2010 at 08:30 am in department 69 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Final Status Conference

05/17/2010 at 09:30 am in department 69 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Jury Trial
----------------------------------



Documents Filed (Filing dates listed in descending order)


11/10/2009 Reply/Response (IN SUPPORT OF SATISH KALPOE'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL, ETC. )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

11/03/2009 Opposition Document (TO PLTF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER INTERROGATORY ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCS. )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

[AC]

12/31/2009
Motion to Compel (PLTFS TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION IN CALIFORNIA SET: 1-29-10)
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

So, what will happen if the defendants do not show?

[yankee-in-france]

12/31/2009
Motion to Compel (PLTFS TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION IN CALIFORNIA SET: 1-29-10)
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

So, what will happen if the defendants do not show?

.. perhaps sanctions for not complying with discovery requests?

[resigned]

01/15/2010 Proof of Service (RE RESPONSE IN OPPO. TO MOTION TO COMPEL, ETC. )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

01/13/2010 Miscellaneous-Other (JOINT SEPARATE STATEMENT RE SATISH KALPOE'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL, ETC. )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

01/13/2010 Proof of Service (RE JOINT SEPARATE STATEMENT, ETC. )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

[resigned]

The Court ruled that the Kalpoes have until June 1, 2010 to be deposed in the State of California.

[iquitos]

is this some kind of ploy?

http://travel.state.gov/law/info/judici ... l_657.html

maybe they can't get visas.

[Heli]

Reporters go all over the world to take depositions for cases originating in the U.S. Having said that, it may be that that rule does not extend to parties who are plaintiffs in an action. I don't know.

Since the Kalpoes went to Aruba as minors to live with their mother who married an aruban, they may not have needed a passport. Surinamme and Aruba both having ties to The Netherlands may have made that unnecessary.

Remember that the Kalpoe brothers were reported to be legal residents on Aruba - one of them had temporary renewal issues at some point after Natalee's disappearance.

I wouldn't be surprised they're having problems obtaining documentation from Surinamme - citizenship or passports etc.

[AC]

Reporters go all over the world to take depositions for cases originating in the U.S. Having said that, it may be that that rule does not extend to parties who are plaintiffs in an action. I don't know.

Since the Kalpoes went to Aruba as minors to live with their mother who married an aruban, they may not have needed a passport. Surinamme and Aruba both having ties to The Netherlands may have made that unnecessary.

Remember that the Kalpoe brothers were reported to be legal residents on Aruba - one of them had temporary renewal issues at some point after Natalee's disappearance.

I wouldn't be surprised they're having problems obtaining documentation from Surinamme - citizenship or passports etc.

This case was filed such a long time ago. Wouldn't you think the necessary papers would have been initiated long ago? I mean, why wait until now?

[Heli]

This case was filed such a long time ago. Wouldn't you think the necessary papers would have been initiated long ago? I mean, why wait until now?

One would think so, particularly when they have U.S. lawyers representing them.

If you read up on the complex issues surrounding citizenship in Surinamme and The Netherlands etc. and when the rules changed in that regard, it might shed some light on what possibly may be the problem.

Don't discount the fact that counsel for the defendants are probably bringing motions to compel at every turn. Case management attempts to keep a case moving along and when pressed by defence counsel, the Court may have given a timeframe for completion of those depositions simply as a case management matter.

I don't read too much into the "order". Judges make orders all the time and they don't necessarily or even usually mean that a party is resistant to fulfilling their obligations.

[AC]

One would think so, particularly when they have U.S. lawyers representing them.

If you read up on the complex issues surrounding citizenship in Surinamme and The Netherlands etc. and when the rules changed in that regard, it might shed some light on what possibly may be the problem.

Don't discount the fact that counsel for the defendants are probably bringing motions to compel at every turn. Case management attempts to keep a case moving along and when pressed by defence counsel, the Court may have given a timeframe for completion of those depositions simply as a case management matter.

I don't read too much into the "order". Judges make orders all the time and they don't necessarily or even usually mean that a party is resistant to fulfilling their obligations.

Thanks, Heli.

[iquitos]

which may not be over yet, they may put their very residence in aruba in jeopardy if they leave. they would not be dutch citizens as arubans are since suriname became independent before they were born (1975). they would also need a visa for the us. knowing this the defense might be using it to complicate their lives. remember the last motion to compel that was going to kill the case? it came and went and the case is still here. they don't have to be there in person to be deposed.

[resigned]

We'll see.

[Bubbles]

12/31/2009
Motion to Compel (PLTFS TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION IN CALIFORNIA SET: 1-29-10)
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

So, what will happen if the defendants do not show?

Nothing until the judge rules in favor of defendants. (And the judge will most likely rule in their favor since plaintiffs brought the suit).

After that, Dr Fraud would have to file another motion if the depo date cannot be agreed or the plaintiffs skip out on the scheduled depo. As a practical matter, Dr Fraud's atty's will try to reschedule, since it happens all the time. If unable then they may file for dismissal.

[Bubbles]

We'll see.

Where is the judge's ruling and where is the rest of the defendants' papers?

[Bubbles]

Reporters go all over the world to take depositions for cases originating in the U.S. Having said that, it may be that that rule does not extend to parties who are plaintiffs in an action. I don't know.

Since the Kalpoes went to Aruba as minors to live with their mother who married an aruban, they may not have needed a passport. Surinamme and Aruba both having ties to The Netherlands may have made that unnecessary.

Remember that the Kalpoe brothers were reported to be legal residents on Aruba - one of them had temporary renewal issues at some point after Natalee's disappearance.

I wouldn't be surprised they're having problems obtaining documentation from Surinamme - citizenship or passports etc.

Defendants do not have to chase plaintiffs if plaintiffs filed in CA.

[Bubbles]

is this some kind of ploy?

http://travel.state.gov/law/info/judici ... l_657.html

maybe they can't get visas.

That part is not relevant since the Kalpoes brought the lawsuit and did so in CA.

The link would only be relevant if the parties were reversed.

[AC]

Thanks, Bubbles.

[Heli]

I'm no attorney...but it the court has ruled it was noteworthy news and therefore not an invasion of privacy...they can't later come back and say it was. So at a minimum...at least the invasion of privacy has been dealt with in my opinion.

As to dismissing Skeeter from commiting fraud...it could open the door for Dr. Phil. Saying Skeeter didn't...doesn't necessarily mean Dr Phil didn't.

A rather stale old post but nonetheless ... court decisions are overturned regularly by higher courts on appeal.

I don't think any court of proper jurisdiction has ruled on issues of invasion of privacy as it relates to anyone in the case.

The California court will in due course, barring settlement between the parties that is.

[Linda in L.A.]

A rather stale old post but nonetheless ... court decisions are overturned regularly by higher courts on appeal.

I don't think any court of proper jurisdiction has ruled on issues of invasion of privacy as it relates to anyone in the case.

The California court will in due course, barring settlement between the parties that is.

lol...yeah ok Heli. You had to reach for this one didn't you? But you are right. If someone wanted to go to the time and expense to appeal this decision...it most certainly could be overturned. Anyone you can think of who would be willing to do that? And if so...why haven't they already done so.

[resigned]

Aruba.com "corrections" from Dr. Phil show 1/19/06


http://tinyurl.com/25zak94

[resigned]

http://scaredmonkeys.net/index.php?topi ... msg1153664

[resigned]

06/10/2010 Order (ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR PLNTFS' DEPO, OR ALLOWING THEM TO PROCEED IN ARUBA )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

06/10/2010 Ex-Parte Application (FOR ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF'S DEPOSITION )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

06/10/2010 Opposition Document
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

[resigned]

[dugo]

woot